A news arti­cle from a sub­urb of Toron­to, Cana­da has just crossed my desk. A lady was get­ting her paper on her dri­ve­way as her two dogs frol­icked (and were prob­a­bly con­cen­trat­ing on oth­er things like their toi­lette) when, “My two dogs were on my prop­er­ty about 20 feet away from my front door … I saw a large ani­mal run by on the street and the dogs start­ed bark­ing. I yelled at my dogs to get back in the house and was able to get the first one inside, but the sec­ond dog was just snatched up and had its neck snapped right in front of me.”
She (the dog own­er) goes on, “the ani­mals were much larg­er than reg­u­lar coy­otes and more tanned in colour. She added that respond­ing police and town offi­cials told her that they believe the ani­mals were coy­wolves, a hybrid between the West­ern coy­ote and the East­ern wolf.”

Enter the “sci­en­tist”, “Dr. Bradley White, a pro­fes­sor at Trent Uni­ver­si­ty and Cana­di­an research chair of con­ser­va­tion, genet­ics and bio­di­ver­si­ty, has stud­ied these ani­mals for over a decade and says that while attacks on pets are com­mon they gen­er­al­ly avoid con­tact with humans. He not­ed there’s been just one con­firmed attack and fatal­i­ty across the coun­try – and that involved a jog­ger in Cape Bre­ton a few years back. “Giv­en the num­bers and the record­ed inter­ac­tions with humans, there is no real evi­dence to sug­gest that they present any real dan­ger to humans,” he said. The hybrid species is rel­a­tive­ly new, first appear­ing less than 100 years ago after evolv­ing in the wake of mass wolf-culling ini­tia­tives in the East­ern Unit­ed States. As the wolves dis­ap­peared, the coy­otes moved in and cross breed­ing occurred. The species has since migrat­ed to Cana­da and flour­ished. Accord­ing to White, the hybrids have become very well adapt­ed to liv­ing in both rur­al and urban areas, with numer­ous con­firmed sight­ings and encoun­ters in Toron­to and across the GTA. He also says that pro­grams to remove the ani­mals are large­ly inef­fec­tive, as those removed through culling or relo­ca­tion are quick­ly replaced due to the species’ grow­ing num­bers and adaptability.

Final­ly, the bureau­crat speaks, “Mick­ey Frost, direc­tor of enforce­ment with the Mis­sis­sauga Trans­porta­tion and Works Depart­ment, said that this is the third such report­ed inci­dent to be report­ed so far this year. Parks staff has post­ed signs in near­by parks warn­ing of the ani­mals’ pres­ence and will be pro­vid­ing hand­out mate­r­i­al at libraries in the area. Infor­ma­tion and safe­ty tips can also be found online at mississauga.ca. “Our thoughts are with the fam­i­ly that lost their pet. We encour­age res­i­dents to con­tact Ani­mal Ser­vices to report sight­ings and if any ani­mal is injured or act­ing strange­ly,” said Frost. “Our offi­cers are remind­ing res­i­dents to be aware and keep their pets on leash.”

Where to begin? Per­haps explain­ing the sit­u­a­tion in the reverse order report­ed above will be the most under­stand­able for the gen­er­al read­er. What I describe here is also hap­pen­ing in West­ern Europe…

What I describe here is going on day in and day out involv­ing, wolves, griz­zly bears, black bears, moose, elk, deer, wild and domes­tic sheep, cat­tle, sage grouse, suck­ers, smelt, darters, and oth­er ani­mals used as props in the environmental/animal rights’ war on society.

1. I begin with men­tion of the pri­ma­ry male­fac­tor (of the 3) respon­si­ble for wildlife myths and the cre­ation of Romance Biol­o­gy as Pro­pa­gan­da. This pri­ma­ry male­fac­tor is the cur­rent crop of politi­cians men­tioned first despite their absence in this par­tic­u­lar sit­u­a­tion of their making.

For 40 to 50 years now, cen­tral gov­ern­ment (USA, Cana­da and EU) politi­cians in league with the UN have, in fits and starts, increased their pow­er, author­i­ty, and juris­dic­tion at the expense of “low­er” units of gov­ern­ment like States, Euro­pean nation­al gov­ern­ments, and region­al and Local gov­ern­ment units like Amer­i­can Counties…In order for the politi­cians to con­tin­ue these environmental/animal rights’ scams over the objec­tions of those they harm (the rur­al com­mu­ni­ties com­posed of fam­i­lies and busi­ness­es that are almost always a minor­i­ty of the vot­ing pub­lic the high­er “up”; i.e. Ottawa, Wash­ing­ton, Brus­sels, UN HQ; you go). Wildlife Myths and Romance Biol­o­gy Pro­pa­gan­da dis­guised as “sci­ence” are increas­ing­ly nec­es­sary as ani­mal sanc­ti­fi­ca­tion increas­es. Some exam­ples would be:

– Wolves (or “coy­wolves”) nev­er attack people.
— Wolves don’t spread disease.
— The griz­zly would not have killed the girl camper in her sleep­ing bag if she had stayed home while she was menstruating.
— The answer to all these bear encoun­ters is bet­ter garbage cans.
— She should have nev­er run from them.
— Live­stock own­ers must learn new tech­niques if they want to stay in business.
— Wolves killing dogs means peo­ple must restrain their dogs; dogs being used to hunt wolves is inhu­mane and a crime against “nature”.
— Wolves “restore” stream bank veg­e­ta­tion by killing wild and domes­tic graz­ing animals.
— There is such a thing as a “bal­anced (?) ecosys­tem” that “belongs” every­where that “sci­ence” (and gov­ern­ment) dictates.
— Prob­lem wild ani­mals should nev­er be killed, but cap­tured and released in a “wilder­ness” (a val­ue judg­ment, not “sci­ence”).
— “Sci­ence” will (if giv­en enough mon­ey over time) des­ig­nate how peo­ple must behave in the pres­ence of wild ani­mals and politi­cians will pass laws man­dat­ing such human behav­ior and bureau­crats will write, amend and enforce reg­u­la­tions under these laws (if they get more and more mon­ey despite the fact that rur­al tax­pay­ers, rur­al tax­es and rur­al licens­ing and per­mit rev­enue i.e. hunt, fish, graze, log, devel­op ener­gy, etc. are dwin­dling and disappearing).
— It is inevitable that this ani­mal wor­ship (the cor­rect word) spills into sub­ur­ban and even urban loca­tions from time to time. This makes myths about wildlife and romance biol­o­gy pro­pa­gan­da even more nec­es­sary as peo­ple are ques­tion­ing that what is hap­pen­ing is “good”, nec­es­sary or endurable.

2. The bureau­crats are the enablers of these cen­tral gov­ern­ment politi­cians. They are also the “part­ners” of the extrem­ist orga­ni­za­tions that sup­port the politi­cians as well as the dis­pensers of grant mon­ey and sta­tus so sought after by “sci­en­tists” and their assis­tants. In this case, the bureau­crat (Mick­ey Frost, direc­tor of enforce­ment with the Mis­sis­sauga Trans­porta­tion and Works Depart­ment) pro­tects the politi­cians (that admin­is­ter the bureau­crats) and quotes the “sci­ence” as well as offers condolences.

A. Since this is, “the third such report­ed inci­dent to be report­ed so far this year” any rur­al per­son famil­iar with “habit­u­at­ing” (“sci­ence” for increas­ing­ly bold) coy­ote, wolf, dog, cougar or bear) car­ni­vores knows it is a prob­lem requir­ing the death of offend­ing ani­mals AND a reduc­tion of their den­si­ties or even their elim­i­na­tion over the sur­round­ing areas. To men­tion this in pass­ing and then men­tion the next item is how myths and romance biol­o­gy pro­pa­gan­da are used to mel­low out the gen­er­al pub­lic like mar­i­jua­na or mor­phine are used to dull the senses.

B. “Parks staff has post­ed signs in near­by parks warn­ing of the ani­mals’ pres­ence and will be pro­vid­ing hand­out mate­r­i­al at libraries in the area. Infor­ma­tion and safe­ty tips can also be found online at mississauga.ca.” So signs and hand­outs will tell the peo­ple what they must do to make every­one and their dogs “safe”. The wild ani­mals “always” do such and such and you must always do such and such and every­thing will be fine. This is rem­i­nis­cent of the con­stant line of malarkey fed to ranch­ers about “non-lethal” pro­tec­tion of live­stock, a game that the wolves keep fig­ur­ing out as the herds get small­er and the wolves get more numer­ous and the gov­ern­ment boys and girls even­tu­al­ly just shrug…

C. He goes on, “Our offi­cers are remind­ing res­i­dents to be aware and keep their pets on leash.” Are there real­ly dog walk­ers that believe that if habit­u­at­ing wild ani­mals are attack­ing and killing dogs in and around res­i­dences and parks, that they won’t soon jump the dog on a leash con­nect­ed to some kid or elder­ly per­son or jog­ging soc­cer Mom? Who in their right mind, no mat­ter how much they “love” their dog or how much they spend on its cos­tume for Hal­loween (??) wants to get tan­gled up in a leash and a dog and a wild ani­mal out to kill the dog?

D. For all you folks that have writ­ten me nasty notes over the years about my call­ing these ani­mal rights’ and ani­mal pro­tec­tion laws, pagan ani­mal wor­ship, I bring your atten­tion to this gov­ern­ment bureau­crat giv­ing this pet the atten­tion we all used to give the unborn or the dis­abled or the elder­ly when they “passed away”. I sub­mit that the fol­low­ing words meant to endear self-serv­ing politi­cians, self-serv­ing bureau­crats and the ani­mal rights agen­da to the very peo­ple they are harm­ing “Our thoughts are with the fam­i­ly that lost their pet” should give us all pause. Read them again and think about that. Cor­rupt gov­ern­ments put, pro­tect and jus­ti­fy these dan­ger­ous and destruc­tive wild animal/human sit­u­a­tions in our midst and then tell us it is all “sci­ence” to absolve all humans (politi­cian, bureau­crats, rad­i­cals, and “sci­en­tists”) who are always con­duct­ing “research” and search­ing for sil­ver bul­lets and a fan­ta­sy world that nev­er has and nev­er will exist. All of which brings us to our last male­fac­tor, the scientist.

3. The sci­en­tists are the wiz­ards out of the fairy tale that con­coct the mag­ic potions that are every bit as real as the elixirs described in Cin­derel­la or Hansel and Gretel.
In this case, “sci­ence” tells us:

– “While attacks on pets are com­mon they gen­er­al­ly avoid con­tact with humans.” “Gen­er­al­ly” is a gener­ic term, the use of which implies absolute­ly no cer­tain­ty or respon­si­bil­i­ty on the part of this wiz­ard and his elixir. This state­ment is meaningless.

– “There’s been just one con­firmed attack and fatal­i­ty across the coun­try – and that involved a jog­ger in Cape Bre­ton a few years back.” So to this “sci­en­tist”, “just one” (acknowl­edged or offi­cial­ly report­ed) “con­firmed attack and fatal­i­ty” is accept­able (a val­ue judg­ment he and all his ilk are in NO WAY qual­i­fied to make). Also, these sub­ur­ban ladies and kids and their dogs are told to accept the idea that hav­ing these ani­mals around is no more prob­lem­at­ic than hav­ing wild para­keets at their bird­feed­ers. The more habit­u­at­ed they get and the more dense their pop­u­la­tion becomes (in the urban/suburban world of unlim­it­ed food and total pro­tec­tion) the more dan­ger­ous they become.

– “Giv­en the num­bers and the record­ed inter­ac­tions with humans, there is no real evi­dence to sug­gest that they present any real dan­ger to humans,” After acknowl­edg­ing the death of a jog­ger in a gov­ern­ment park we are told to believe, “there is no real evi­dence to sug­gest that they present any real dan­ger to humans”? Earth to sci­en­tists, do you real­ly think the gen­er­al pub­lic is that stupid?

– Offi­cials told the dog own­er, “that they believe the ani­mals were coy­wolves, a hybrid between the West­ern coy­ote and the East­ern wolf.” FACT – Coy­otes and wolves and all dogs cross-breed and pro­duce “viable” (mean­ing the pups grow up and can make “viable” pup­pies with any wolf, coy­ote or dog). It used to be (before all this romance biol­o­gy tripe was made into law) that “species” was defined as a group of ani­mals that shared sim­i­lar char­ac­ter­is­tics and could breed and pro­duce “viable” off­spring. In oth­er words; wolves are coy­otes are dogs. Now the gen­er­al pub­lic is fed romance biol­o­gy pro­pa­gan­da such as the “Mex­i­can” wolf, the “tim­ber” wolf, the “East­ern” wolf, etc.: being as dis­tinct as giraffes and ele­phants. The truth is these wolves, coy­otes and dogs are like human races with all their skin tones and size dif­fer­ences and behav­ioral dif­fer­ences. Like humans breed­ing between races, the sizes and col­ors and behav­ior results are a blend of the par­ents and over time such cross-breed­ing min­i­mizes dif­fer­ences in suc­ceed­ing gen­er­a­tions. Coy­otes, wolves and wild or free-roam­ing dogs can, each and every one; kill almost every ani­mal they encounter; eat and digest a wide vari­ety of foods, learn to live in almost any sit­u­a­tion where food and safe­ty exists for them, and learn to out­wit any deter­rent men can come up with short of extir­pat­ing them. Cred­it­ing these wolves, coy­otes, dogs, and “coy­wolves” with some sort of sep­a­rate spe­cial char­ac­ters or habits is like invok­ing dis­cred­it­ed mis­ce­gena­tion laws for fear of imag­ined off­spring char­ac­ter­is­tics or believ­ing in Nazi or Mar­garet Sanger nos­trums about ster­il­iz­ing “infe­ri­or” races to cre­ate a “super” race. In oth­er words, it is baloney.

– The “sci­en­tist” goes on, “The hybrid species is rel­a­tive­ly new, first appear­ing less than 100 years ago after evolv­ing in the wake of mass wolf-culling ini­tia­tives in the East­ern Unit­ed States. As the wolves dis­ap­peared, the coy­otes moved in and cross breed­ing occurred. The species has since migrat­ed to Cana­da and flourished.”

What non­sense. First, ear­ly (16–1700’s) Amer­i­can Colonists were killing and boun­ty­ing “wolves” at every oppor­tu­ni­ty (a sign of their pri­or­i­ties and respect for the pri­ma­cy of human life and human needs). Sec­ond, there has been much writ­ten about how ear­ly Colo­nial boun­ties went to kill most­ly soli­tary (not pack) ani­mals and how they may well have been sim­ply large coy­otes in the East as opposed to the small­er coy­otes encoun­tered lat­er as the set­tle­ments moved West. Third, this guy is ask­ing you to believe his sil­ly sto­ry for which there is only sup­po­si­tion, that this “new” “species” “evolved” AFTER evil humans killed the wolves but then ignored coy­otes that also killed cat­tle, dogs, sheep, etc.? So those wolf killers and their sons and grand­sons all became “Defend­ers of Wildlife” automa­tons like the sons of New Zealand whalers became Green­peace sup­port­ers? Then we are to believe these “Amer­i­can” “coy­wolves” then migrat­ed to Cana­da and flour­ished? All this while Cana­di­ans exter­mi­nat­ed wolves on Prince Edward Island but (due to the vast N Wood­lands and tun­dra) could only peri­od­i­cal­ly reduce wolf pop­u­la­tions in their set­tled land­scapes when attacks and live­stock loss­es, etc. became intol­er­a­ble? I am remind­ed of how US May­ors of Big Cities are con­ve­nient­ly most­ly rabid gun-con­trollers blam­ing all the crime and vio­lence in their cities on guns from else­where like this guy blam­ing Amer­i­can “coy­wolves” that result­ed from Amer­i­can “wolf-culling” for a cur­rent Cana­di­an wolf/coyote problem.

4. Final­ly, the “piece de resis­tance” for the “sci­en­tist” and “sci­ence” to ingra­ti­ate them­selves to the politi­cians, bureau­crats and rad­i­cals; “He also says that pro­grams to remove the ani­mals are large­ly inef­fec­tive, as those removed through culling or relo­ca­tion are quick­ly replaced due to the species’ grow­ing num­bers and adapt­abil­i­ty.” There is no hope for any alter­na­tive, so sit down and do as you are told.. That Amer­i­can “wolf-culling” stuff so demeaned cen­turies ago and that pro­vid­ed a safe and pro­duc­tive rur­al Amer­i­can soci­ety for hun­dreds of years is/was “inef­fec­tive”? Killing them whole­sale and then con­tin­u­ing it until there were no more, where WE lived and grew our fam­i­lies, pro­vid­ed a safe place for women and kids and dogs and elk and moose and deer and cat­tle and sheep and old folks and hik­ers and campers and fish­er­men but was futile since they are “quick­ly replaced”? What plan­et do they think we are from feed­ing us this sort of con­tra­dic­tions? These dan­ger­ous and destruc­tive ani­mals are not only pro­tect­ed and even pur­pose­ly intro­duced into rur­al areas and com­mu­ni­ties by force over the objec­tions of those coerced into liv­ing with them: when they begin dam­ag­ing the suburban/urban pil­grims the lies, dis­tor­tions and romance biol­o­gy pro­pa­gan­da are ratch­eted up accord­ing­ly so that we are made to appre­ci­ate the harm and dan­ger gov­ern­ment impos­es on us for its own good. One is remind­ed of the old say­ing, “The beat­ing will con­tin­ue until morale improves!”

5. Final­ly, the lady dog own­er is you and I. How long will she (us) believe the unbe­liev­able? How long will we tol­er­ate politi­cians and bureau­crats that harm rur­al (and now sub­ur­ban) peo­ple for their (the politi­cians and bureau­crats) own ben­e­fit? How long will we let teach­ers and TV shows indoc­tri­nate our chil­dren about myth­i­cal wild ani­mals like Sovi­et kids in state schools being taught about Amer­i­can soci­ety? Will we ever accept the fact that such ani­mals do not belong in set­tled land­scapes and that the will of those peo­ple where such ani­mals exist or are slat­ed to exist should first and fore­most be the decid­ing fac­tor on where and how many, if any, will be tol­er­at­ed? Will we ever again real­ize that prob­lem ani­mals like wolves, coy­otes, wild dogs and all cross-breeds of the same must be killed and con­tin­u­al­ly killed in order to keep areas free of them or to main­tain tol­er­a­ble den­si­ties where they are to be tol­er­at­ed? Can the gen­er­al pub­lic ever be told the truth about the cen­turies and even mil­len­ni­ums of expen­sive and time-con­sum­ing wolf con­trols through­out Europe and then in the “New World” in order to estab­lish wolf-free civ­i­liza­tions that pros­pered at faster rates than the “unciv­i­lized” areas where wolves per­sist­ed to this day? Will she (us) ever come to under­stand that wild ani­mal man­age­ment, like free­dom, takes con­stant nur­tur­ing and sac­ri­fice if suc­ceed­ing gen­er­a­tions are to ever have the oppor­tu­ni­ties we had and any chance to improve what we pass on to them?

Today, wildlife “sci­ence” is mere­ly Romance Biol­o­gy used for oth­er nefar­i­ous pur­pos­es like the ancient pseu­do­science of phrenol­o­gy that taught you could pre­dict the char­ac­ter­is­tics and behav­ior of indi­vid­u­als by their skull mea­sure­ments. Just as those ancient phre­nol­o­gists used their own skull mea­sure­ments to define “smart” and “trust­wor­thy”; so too are these wild ani­mal pseu­do­sci­en­tists defin­ing what­ev­er gov­ern­ment and rad­i­cals want them to assert for the “treats” they will give them. Phrenol­o­gy was final­ly dis­cred­it­ed when the fact of no rela­tion­ship between skull and char­ac­ter­is­tics became unde­ni­able and soon enough all this romance biol­o­gy pro­pa­gan­da will be exposed for the hoax it is in the ser­vice of evil agen­das. The only real ques­tion is how many must be killed or injured and how much prop­er­ty lost before san­i­ty returns?…